AOL Rearranges Deck Chairs, Introduces New Logo

Close to severing ties with Time Warner and fresh off announcing that they plan to cull almost a third of their work force by the end of the year, AOL has debuted–why not?–a new logo and branding campaign. The new logo has a variety of backgrounds, but always the new name in a sans-serif font: “Aol.” Yes, with the period.

The question is, does the world even need AOL–er, “Aol.”–anymore?

“AOL had such a clear meaning in the early days of the Internet,” said Allen P. Adamson, managing director of the New York office of Landor Associates, a brand and corporate identity consultancy that is part of the Young & Rubicam Brands unit of WPP.

“To re-establish AOL as relevant today requires a massive shift in what it stands for to be effective,” Mr. Adamson said. “Being around a long time in technology is already one strike against you.”

Although to many, AOL “signals your father’s Internet,” he added, the new brand identity retains the name.

You really hit the nail on the head there. They are past tense (for now). They failed to move past being an ISP, and everything they do now is an weak attempt to become relevant again.

The only value of relevance I can come up with for their brand would be to take what they can get from a search firm (e.g. Yahoo, Google, Microsoft).

Alternatively, perhaps they should consider disappearing from the commercial landscape for 15-20 years, then re-emerge as some kind of super ISP with a nostalgia factor. At least there would be a glimmer of hope then…

I agree with Megalomania, nor do I think that AOL â€œsignals your fatherâ€™s Internet,â€ I also don’t like the new “Aol” logo. Does anyone see this besides me? AOL is an acronym which dictates the necessity of all caps. Aol makes no sense. Now it looks like a word that is unknown in the English language and who came up with this? I think keeping the AOL with a new colorized logo would be more prudent, but then, what American Corporation shows any prudence in business tactics today? From someone who is very familiar with European business methodologies and thinking it always makes me laugh when in American business methodologies, we are so focused on the “now” instead of the big picture. We have this obsession with “changing” without realizing that change is not always good. In Europe, business practices do not do this and they keep the norm, called “business as usual”. Their business models are strong, resilient, and they are focused on the long-term. We’re too compulsive to see what we’re doing wrong and AOL is a perfect example of what not to do. The problem is the boomer management teams only care about greed and whatever makes them the star for the moment.

Never, ever understood why people used AOL. I mean, as a call-up form of internet access, it made sense. But when phone companies started offering their own service, the writing was on the wall. It had nothing to offer that couldn’t be had for free elsewhere on the internet. AOL was only valuable for chat early on, and I’m certain its gross profits were a function of that. But again, once a person could access the WWW through a browser AOL had nothing unique to offer.

AOL also screwed itself by refusing to play ball with any advancements. Early on, one couldn’t just browse the internet with a browser one had on one’s computer. You had to run through an AOL portal, and it was slow and painful to use. They wouldn’t let outsiders into their chats.

I think they just failed to get it completely. I could have told a stock analyst this 15 years ago, but I don’t anyone would listen to a person with common sense.

Alright, I’m sorry, but this is just an aesthetically terrible redesign in my view.

Very, very few companies are served well by trading on an abbreviation rather than a full name. America Online means something, and not even that bad of a something. [ Aol. ] means, well, nothing. It’s written as if not an abbreviation, and yet is nearly unpronounceable. The period just makes no sense whatsoever, and putting it white against a bunch of weird backgrounds makes it more annoying and difficult to read, as well as diluting any message that might have been left. “New” and “hip” are not messages. “Our product does X” is a message. Even Apple, kings of new and hip marketing messages, shows people USING their products in their adverts.

You want to know what makes a good logo? Look at two of the most enduring ones still around. CocaCola, circa 1890. Readable (if somewhat elaborate text), telling you what the product is (a cola). AmericanAirlines, circa 1960. The logo is one word, eminently readable, colour and capital letters differentiating the words. Tells you what it is: an airline, based in America.

Image can help you sell something, but you can’t sell image alone. America Online is trying to just sell an image of something. I doubt they’ll find many buyers in the mirage market.

How do you show someone using AOL? What is there to use that isn’t available free elsewhere? Who uses it that you’d want to show using it? (No one wants to see a suggestion that they should be like the senile old AOL user who checks their email once per month or doesn’t remember that they’re paying for the account at all)

“Talk about a challenging assignment for an agency that develops brand identities. AOL turned to Wolff Olins in New York, a unit of the Omnicom Group, which Mr. Armstrong praised for its work on Product (Red), the initiative that raises money for AIDS treatment in Africa.”

Wolff Olins is the swindler who was able to part AOL with their money for such stupidity.

The only thing AOL has to offer besides dialup for those who can’t get broadband is their email service. It’s one of the few that you can actually use with M$ Outlook without having to pay an extra fee (but that may change).

Even the article doesn’t specify HOW they want to become relevant. What can they possibly do with the company right now that is a working business model, other than become another Yahoo or Google? Nobody liked AOL when it was relevant, it was just what we were stuck with. They only exist now by convincing old people that you have to pay for email and a search page with broadband. They’re a horrible company and always have been.

AOL is for tech-dumb people who don’t understand how the internet works.

I remember I signed up for the free trial while waiting for my real internet service to be installed. When I called to cancel and told the guy I was getting broadband, he spent the required 9000 minutes trying to convince me that I should totally keep AOL AND my broadband because of all the awesome features AOL has! lolz

Looks like they went outside at HQ, pulled in some random person off the sidewalk and asked them to design some logos using Google image search. I spent two decades in corporate advertising and have never seen anything this pathetic. First rule of logos – do not obscure the logo. Also, try putting these on a give away pen.

I wonder if this came from the same people who came up with the new logo for UCLA (see http://www.identity.ucla.edu/graphicstandards/ ) The logic for the design was: UCLA was founded in 1919. The Bauhaus Manifesto was issued in 1919. Therefore the font called Bauhaus is perfect for our logo.

“What do you want for your new logo?”“It should say Aol.”
“Um, ok. Anything else?”“Yeah, it should have something behind it.”
“Anything in particular.”“Nah, we trust you.”
“Done.” Wow, and before breakfast, too. Easy peasy.

Yeah, I guess AOL should have thought about that before they worked so hard to frustrate and lock in their users. They could have ruled the world. All they would have had to do was offer good customer service back in ’96.

AOL isn’t my daddy’s internet. He has high speed broadband. To really date myself, I was on AOL before it was AOL. QLink (Commodore computers only) was how it started, then once they realized this newfangled IBM compatible thing was here to stay, they changed and after being revamped, became AOL.

Even other dialup didn’t phase this service. It wasn’t even broadband that did it. It was the onset of the likes of Google, and the expansion of companies of all types into the Internet.

That’s what AOL had to offer – services you want, made easily accessible. Once the Internet could do that, and provide more choices, service impartial information and bargains, AOL was toast.

And yet Yahoo! is still around. AOL needs to re-invent itself again instead of flailing around with cheap logos which now compel me to try and pronounce an acronym. I hate that.

The new logo is ridiculous and doesn’t address the real problem. AOL was always a bloated software application for accessing the Internet. So now, in 2009, what is AOL? What is it for? What does it do? Why do you need it? Supposedly the “period” in the logo represents the pivotal point of what comes after AOL (which frankly no one gets unless you tell them)…so what is it?

I think a lot of people still think of free floppies and dialup when they think AOL. Nowadays that isn’t even a core business for them. Anyone that reads Engadget or Autoblog is an AOL user. AOL is all about content – and they are MASSIVE in that segment.

That said – as long as they are still called AOL, everyone will think of those damn free disks and “cancel the damn account” stories :D

Oh, I see, that’s why some links were shut down. It’s good they are trying to change the logo. I hope it does means that there is also a major change in their product and services that will really be helpful. With upcoming new service providers today, they should maintain there competitiveness. Consumers nowadays tend to be really keen on what is new and what is best in the market.

Cannot understand why they use a “dot” though. It symbolizes the end. ;)

Oh, I see, that’s why some links were shut down. It’s good they are trying to change the logo. I hope it does means that there is also a major change in their product and services that will really be helpful. With upcoming new service providers today, they should maintain there competitiveness. Consumers nowadays tend to be really keen on what is new and what is best in the market.

Cannot understand why they use a “dot” though. It symbolizes the end. ;)